all 23 comments

[–]Grateful 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Authoritarianism is scary no matter what side it comes from.

I have major concerns of how many people I know support the suppression of free speech and ideas because it fits their views. An example is how twitter suppresses any political view that is not Democrat - this includes Libertarian or Independent political views. Since they hate the current President they are OK with it. I ask in a rhetorical sense "what about the next President and the one after that?" One day we will have a President that wants to start a war and if they are the "correct" political party, twitter will suppress any criticism of that President. By then it will be too late to have a public forum and they will not be able to voice their concerns.

As for what I believe in, I believe in discussion and the exchange of ideas and thought. I accept people for who they are, including their political views. I reject all forms of racism and sexism and all the -isms. If I meet someone for the first time, I don't give a shit if they like Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren.

Reddit has officially jumped the shark. I'm happy that they finally went and destroyed themselves and people like you are jumping ship. Hope this place works out for you and everyone else.

[–]Current_Year_Acct 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Been screaming this from the top of my lungs for five years now. The left have become the authoritarians in this country. If you look at your basic political compass, the x axis is left / right, the y axis is authoritarian / libertarian. You can have left or right authoritarians just like you can have left or right libertarians.

[–]quipu 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Authoritarianism is on the rise for sure. The best way to avoid it is to keep your identity small and make yourself invisible to would-be dictators. Stay anonymous where possible, distance yourself from the so-called "friends" who have embraced authoritarian beliefs, and don't talk politics except with trusted allies (play dumb/uninformed if it comes up).

There is a good book called "The Authoritarians" that explores the topic of authoritarian personalities. Unfortunately it was written back when most obvious authoritarians were on the right, so there is some bias, but if you can get past that then some of the general ideas are interesting. There's a PDF available somewhere if you search for it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

keep your identity small

this means don't invest your identity into belonging to one of these political factions?

[–]quipu 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Correct, and don't keep a substantial social media presence tied to your name. If you can avoid it, you shouldn't even use the same handle across different websites.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Oh, you mean your identity with other people too, not just your internal sense of identity?

[–]quipu 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Both. Creating a big online identity just feeds your offline ego.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

authoritarian personalities

there is a section of "culture of critique for normies", I think section 6 "pathologizing pride" that talks about how the "authoritarian personality" isn't really a valid psychological concept and it may have come out of an environment where the creators of the concept were motivated to pathologise healthy behavior.

[–]quipu 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's anecdotal, but I definitely know of people who seem to have a more authoritarian personality compared to others. They are the ones who always care about following the rules (whether or not they are sensible), are incredibly annoyed at slight deviations from what they consider "normal" or "acceptable", who feel entitled about having things go their way, and will become incredibly vindictive and aggressive if they do not get what they want. Very similar to the so-called "Karen" meme, but it affects men as well.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

yes, this kind of first-hand observation is maybe different from what the book/video series talks about. They have a section about how the scientific methodology in the book actually showed that "authoritarian personality" people (as defined in the book of that title back in the day) were shown to be healthier, happier, had better social relations, etc. It was interesting to me, and I think it's some relevant background when looking at people who are discussing "authoritarianism," at least in contexts related to psychology. Maybe politics "authoritarianism" has a different set of influences, but I'm not sure.

[–]quipu 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It is also possible that authoritarians (however they are defined) are healthier when their group is in control. This would make sense, as I'd imagine that fellow authoritarians would look out for each other and prioritize each other's needs over the out-group. If they didn't do this, this may lead to their group losing control. In other words, when authoritarians are in control, others suffer while they flourish.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

When I read it it sounded like they were massaging the data to try to look for outcomes they wanted when writing "the authoritarian personality". They were trying to show the opposite of what the data actually showed. I guess it's fine to make theories about what "authoritarians" are like but the point I wanted to add to the discussion is that:

It seems like, in at least one sphere, that concept entered discourse in a dishonest way based on a political objective to smear what may have been normal healthy behavior among a disliked group. I did not know if you were aware of this. I thought you (or other readers) might find it interesting if you were not.

[–]quipu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for the clarification. It's been a long time since I read the book, so I'm not really informed enough to have a good discussion on the specifics of it. I do remember feeling that it seemed somewhat politicized, possibly compromising the "science" (social science lol), and that surely there must exist left-wing authoritarians as well.

This is interesting, from

The research on ideology, politics, and racist prejudice, by John Duckitt and Chris Sibley, identified two types of authoritarian worldview: (i) that the social world is dangerous, which leads to right-wing authoritarianism; and (ii) that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jungle, which leads to social dominance orientation. In a meta-analysis of the research, Sibley and Duckitt explained that the social-dominance orientation scale helps to measure the generalization of prejudice and other authoritarian attitudes that can exist within social groups. Although both the right-wing authoritarianism scale and the social-dominance orientation scale can accurately measure authoritarian personalities, the scales usually are not correlated.

"Social dominance orientation" sounds similar to the implicit goals of many in the social justice movement. From

Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and seekers of power. People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world.

See the "anti-egalitarian" scale specifically. Counter-intuitively, seeking "equality" is a no-no among social justice types. The theory is flawed because once again "authoritarian" is implicitly coupled to "right-wing", but there may be a grain of truth somewhere in there.

It is possible that during the Obama era, many of the "social dominance" authoritarians saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides to maintain their position on the top of the social pyramid. This would explain why their general behaviors are the same, but the specifics are different. It would also explain why so many who supported Bush and his wars have now aligned themselves with the socjus cult and superficial "woke" progressivism.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides

Interesting possibility.

I've certainly seen stuff from men talking about how you can get whatever you want if you claim you're trans, suddenly you're back up at the top.

This "non-equality" stuff seems like a recent shift imo. People seemed to talk more about equality earlier. They still chose the name "feminist" not "equalist" or "gender egalitarian". Though I guess "women's liberation" was a bit different. "Liberation" goes back much further, though, much further.

[–]quipu 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've certainly seen stuff from men talking about how you can get whatever you want if you claim you're trans, suddenly you're back up at the top.

That's completely insane. I'm really glad I avoid those spaces.

This "non-equality" stuff seems like a recent shift imo. People seemed to talk more about equality earlier.

Yeah, I mildly supported the social justice movement back in 2013 or so, back before things were completely insane. They were raising some legitimate issues, but something changed. From the outside it looked like opportunists seized the infrastructure of these groups to use in their own quest for power. The same thing happened in many small hobby/interest groups at around the same time. Outsiders swarmed in and tried to take over, forcing out the old leadership.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm really glad I avoid those spaces.

I think it's nice to go to places like that maybe rarely, just so you can recognize rhetoric from there "in the wild" and know what you're dealing with. Like a vaccine, kinda, helps you recognize it.

The same thing happened in many small hobby/interest groups at around the same time. Outsiders swarmed in and tried to take over, forcing out the old leadership.

Interesting, I was unaware of this.

[–]Wienerwiener 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hayek talks alot about the prerequisites for authoritarianism/fascism in the road to serfdom. I think its basicly like socialism/collectivism requires a big goverment and a central planner and for everybody to just do there part for the good of there country. He mostly focoused on analyzing ww2 Europe. Its interesting to read it and think about america today. I hope hes wrong.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How has authoritarianism affected you and what do you believe (now that you won't get banned for it)?

I guess it's complicated. My view may be shifting with all this ban stuff and seeing the utter hypocricy of people wanting to ban others just not themselves. I feel more hesitant to try to police others when I am vividly reminded right now that the same thing will happen to me.

I also really don't like things I think are harmful though.

I don't like the extent to which, all my life in retrospect, I haven't been able to speak out against the harms and dishonesty of "sexual revolution" propaganda, of anti-White anti-racism propaganda, of immigration, etc. Not nearly the way I've been able to openly call conservative or church-goers "dumb" or whatever people were calling others. It's amped up a lot in recent years but I can see that it's always kinda been there.

I have a strong desire to control people and make my own little fifedom after experiencing all this, and also after experiencing people refusing to engage with me in good faith about political topics. Those safe spaces really are freeing. "No, you're not crazy, my male relative is like that too, he really isn't engaging honestly and you're really not wrong or stupid." It makes me want my own. I'm not sure what to make of that.

I do feel like ideas can be harmful too. Propaganda certainly seems like it can be. I'm not sure what to make of that either.

I really dislike being controlled, and I prefer interacting with other people who aren't being controlled, but I also really dislike not having control over my own environment, and I really don't want people to do things I think are harmful to me or others.

[–]Middernag 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a white South African, I was 3 years old when the "Wise Western people" managed to give my country to the ANC, a bunch of communists. I don't think Authoritarianism is incorrect, nor do I think democracy is good.

An example of how Authoritarianism is better than democracy is how people in a democratic system are deluded into believing they have a choice, you vote for "right-wing" or "left-wing" parties, but both are playing both sides against the middle. The people funding both extremes of the left and right are the same, and the extremes define the center. So your democracy only creates the illusion of choice, because you'll only ever be given a set of puppets to vote for from a list provided to you by investors. In an Authoritarian system while it is oppressive, the oppression is more likely to be realized, and is generally directed at a minority, as is the case in South Africa where there is literally institutionalized racism, however, this does benefit a majority if they have a large enough IQ to take advantage of this, unfortunately the majority here does not.

Another problem with democracy, is that it destroys your sense of urgency to overthrow a government, because "He/She'll only be in office another 4/5 years." This destroys the urgency for a revolution if a people are being oppressed, because most people will be under the assumption that different candidates don't have the same masters, which is once again wrong. In an Authoritarian regime, that urgency exists because the reigning regime will be in power for the remainder of your life if you don't do something, there's no illusion of coming change, you either change it or you live with it. Soldiers have families too, so do police, if a large enough revolution occurred the regime will be toppled, if they want it to, but in a democracy you won't topple anything because there's no urgency along with the illusion of change.

Right and left call each other Authoritarian, the reality is that neither of them are, that's why they don't proudly admit it. You know what else they call each other and don't proudly admit to? Fascism, a third position outside of the little paradigm, that's why you have all the brainwashing and the constant reminders of who the "evil" people are. Fascism isn't one thing, if you don't want to read I recommend a channel called Cultured_thug to see that each incarnation of Fascism was different from any other, it was thus not subject to control, this is part of the reason you're all programmed to hate Nazis.

"It's always the bad guy that needs to constantly convince himself he's the good guy." - Is that why you have so many Jewywood movies about the same subject? Hmmm.

Edit: Also wanted to add that Authoritarianism would be much more beneficial to Europeans to preserve European culture, as opposed to democracy which seeks to destroy it.

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Congrats on seeing through the left/right fake divide, and seeing the real divide. Those in power trying to control everyone, vs those being controlled. It's the only real divide there ever has been, imo. Authoritarian is the perfect word, because it transcends the left/right divide completely. Which is why the media will never mention such a thing, and keeps focusing on lesser divides like race, gender, religion, and left/right. As long as people are focused on these lesser divides, the authoritarians running the show will not be challenged. This is the power of divide-and-conquer.

I honestly can't imagine anything more important to talk about. So much of modern society comes back to this concept.

[–]Scammerovich 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Itțs on the rise and we need to do something.

[–]hector_died_of_aids 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ya and it's a contrived dialectic. the real spectrum is authoritarianism (communism, fascism...) on one side and self rule (anarchy) on the other. the point is state power or not. it was a propaganda scheme to reframe it as 'which flavor of state power'

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One of the most repeated examples for left authoritarianism are the various forms of socialism and communism. The Soviet Union was authoritarian.

It depends on how you define left or right. On what is authoritarian people usually have more consensus on.